Title: What are the reason for Martial Law?

Introduction
In September 1972, Marcos proclaimed martial law, saying it was the last line of defense
against the escalating unrest brought on by increasingly violent student protests, purported
communist insurgency threats from the new Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), and the
Muslim separatist Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF). Arresting opposition lawmakers at
the Constitutional Convention and in Congress was one of his first moves. With the exception of
Muslim southern regions, where a separatist uprising led by the MNLF broke out in 1973, the
general public's first response to martial law was favorable. The revolt continued to cause
thousands of military and civilian casualties despite fumbling attempts to negotiate a cease-fire.
The National Democratic Front (NDF), an alliance of the CPP and other communist parties, was
formed, which contributed to the growth of the communist insurgency.
The regime was able to gather illegal weapons, reduce violent urban crime, put an end to
communist resistance in some places while under martial law. The commencement of a land-
reform program coincided with a number of significant new concessions made to foreign
investors, including a ban on organized labor strikes. A new, parliamentary-based constitution
with Marcos serving as both president and prime minister was ratified, he announced, in
January 1973. However, he did not summon a meeting of the interim legislature as instructed in
that letter.
General disillusionment with martial law and with the consolidation of political and
economic control by Marcos, his family, and close associates grew during the 1970s. Despite
growth in the country’s gross national product, workers’ real income dropped, few farmers
benefited from land reform, and the sugar industry was in confusion. The precipitous drop in
sugar prices in the early 1980s coupled with lower prices and less demand for coconuts and
coconut products—traditionally the most important export commodity—added to the country’s
economic woes; the government was forced to borrow large sums from the international
banking community. Also troubling to the regime, reports of widespread corruption began to
surface with increasing frequency.
Rationale

When he declared martial law in 1972, Marcos claimed that he had done so in response to
the "communist threat" posed by the newly founded Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP),
and the sectarian "rebellion" of the Mindanao Independence Movement (MIM). Opposition
figures of the time, such as Lorenzo Tañada, Jose W. Diokno, and Jovito Salonga, accused
Marcos of exaggerating these threats, using them as a convenient excuse to consolidate power
and extend his tenure beyond the two presidential terms allowed by the 1935 constitution. The
1935 Philippine Constitution allows a President a maximum of two consecutive four-year terms.
Marcos was elected in 1965 and was reelected in 1969. Obviously, he was not allowed to run
for the office of President in 1973. That is why declaring martial law became a necessity for
Marcos, Sr.—to remain in power, to continue to plunder the Philippine economy and to
suppress the growing opposition to his rule.

Marcos’s reign was characterized by an economic crisis brought about by gross economic

mismanagement and corruption. The Philippines’s foreign debt ballooned from $278 million in
1965, to $2.5 billion in 1970. A year before Marcos would be ousted, the foreign debt
skyrocketed to more than $25 billion. This is one of the main sources of Marcos’s ill-gotten,
hidden assets stashed internationally, including his four properties in Manhattan worth $316
million.

Marcos also forcibly took hold of businesses owned by families of his rivals and critics—
among them the TV network ABS-CBN, the power firm Manila Electric Company (Meralco), and
banks such as the First United Bank—and handed them to his cronies. Because of its wanton
disregard for human rights, Marcos’s martial law came to be mentioned in the same breath as
extrajudicial killings (known as salvaging in the Philippines), arrests and imprisonments, torture,
and disappearances. Amnesty International reported that from 1972 to 1981, an estimated
3,240 people were killed, 34,000 tortured, 70,000 people imprisoned, and over 1,600
disappeared, never to be found.

Poverty was at an all-time high. A 1991 U.S. Library of Congress study reported that more
than half of the population in 1985 lived below the poverty line. Farmworkers’ income plunged
by 30 percent from 1962 to 1986, while skilled and unskilled workers’ wages plummeted by an
average of 26 percent. One out of five Filipino children in 1987 died of malnutrition before
reaching his or her fourth birthday, according to a UNICEF report.

Marcos’s martial law also became synonymous with massive corruption and plunder. As
of 2014, the Philippine government was able to recover $4 billion worth of Marcos’s hidden
assets. This unbridled corruption earned Marcos the Number 2 spot in the all-time list of
the world’s most corrupt leaders in 2004.

Project Description

There were some factors that led to the fall of the dictatorship. Reformist Opposition,
he reformist opposition, also known as the legal opposition, was composed of members of the
upper-middle class. Using nonviolent tactics, they advocated political (not necessarily
socioeconomic) reforms. However, the reformist opposition was not a united movement, but
an amalgamation of different middle- and upper-class groups who had different motives. It was
for this reason that Marcos tolerated them, so long as they were incapable of viably replacing
him or attaining the support of the masses. The most prominent opposition movement that
participated in the IBP elections was the newly formed Lakas ng Bayan (LABAN) party of former
senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr., who was imprisoned at that time. Ninoy was initially
apprehensive about running in the election, but he decided to push through with his candidacy
to give the populace a chance to air out their frustration against the government. He
campaigned from his jail cell, even appearing for a 90-minute television interview. Ninoy’s
candidacy inspired an outpouring of popular support that culminated in a noise barrage on the
evening before the elections. At 8:00 p.m., residents in Metro Manila took to the streets,
making whatever noise they could “to let Ninoy Aquino in his prison cell know that the people
had heard his message.”They banged on pots and pans, honked their car horns, and shouted
their throats sore in support of Ninoy and LABAN However, the elections were a total shutout
for LABAN, with Marcos’ Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL) winning 91 percent of the seats in the
IBP.

Revolutionary Opposition, The government’s use of communist and secessionist threats as

justification for Martial Law only contributed to the growth of the political opposition and the
amassing of recruits to the New People’s Army (NPA) and the Moro National Liberation Front
(MNLF) in the provinces in the 1970s. the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP)
strengthened as Marcos’ dictatorship weakened; as opposed to the Partido Komunista ng
Pilipinas (PKP), which surrendered in 1974. Following the principle of “centralized command,
decentralized operations,” the CPP established autonomous, regional, self-sustaining chapters
all over the Philippines. Not only did this give CPP cadres more freedom to experiment with
tactics appropriate to their localities, it also helped them survive the loss of many original
leaders, either to prison or death. In November, 1977, the Armed Forces scored an important
victory over the communist rebels with the capture of Jose Maria Sison and other important
party leaders leading to the disarray of the Communist Party. But the triumph was short-lived
and was too late as the influence of the CPP grew stronger within the provinces.

Religious Opposition, Martial Law also faced opposition from the religious sector.
Mainline Protestant churches have been vocal in their opposition of the dictatorship since
1972; by 1978, they were holding mass protest actions, and by 1981, they held boycott
campaigns for the April plebiscite and the June presidential elections. Meanwhile the Catholic
Church, which sympathized with Marcos’ anti-communism, maintained a position of “critical
collaboration” while paying attention to the opposition among its members. This allowed it a
degree of autonomy when it came to carrying out their social projects, which focused on
alleviating poverty and defending the poor against communism. However, the provincial clergy
started becoming radicalized after seeing the effects of the Marcos dictatorship on the poor.
They formed Christians for National Liberation, which clandestinely used Church “social action”
programs to get foreign funding through private donor agencies that shared the same views.